= new reply since forum marked as read
So you're saying that since the Heller decision the DC murder rate has dropped.
Good to know.
Here: http://app.ddot.dc.gov/
Check the cameras. No flood of any kind that I can see. 
Of course nothing related to the OP, LOL! Please stay on topic,
By first, getting any and all anti-gunners on the same page:
The second amendment protects a right not a privilege, and will be treated as such.
That's funny, because that's exactly what the antigun folks have in mind.
Uh huh.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nobody+wants+to+take+your+guns&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
Like the; "NRA Buys the Congress", "Gun violence is epidemic", "Nobody defends themselves with a gun", "The CDC can't do gun related research", "AR15's are weapons of war" et. al.
It's all simplistic mental and moral rationalization for them.
Otherwise they'd have to realize and accept that their view is not only out of the mainstream ... but also shrinking quickly.
After all, they are intellectually, morally and ethically superior to everyone else , just ask them. Just read any thread in the other group for a gauge on the level of "Smug" they generate.
So they just keep believing in all their bumper stickers and ranting a little more irrationally as time goes by.
Not even realizing that more people are slowly shifting away from them, like a loud, annoying drunk at the party.
Is it your position that the current laws are "nothing"?
(from your first link)
Not a loophole, congress did not intend background checks on personally owned private property, when they passed the brady bill which requires background checks at retail.
Your source wants to ban assault weapons. No sale. Wasn't it you that said that "nobody wants to take your guns?"
Why yes. Yes it was:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=190583
So what.
Uh oh. Ghost guns.
Its not a loophole. Congress did NOT intend to cover privately sold firearms at a gun show or anywhere else, when they passed the brady bill.
Australian style gun control will never fly in America, since what is a regulated privilege in Australia (gun ownership) is a constitutionally protected civil right in America.
I'm curious. Did you type that with a strait face, after posting links to groups that suggest banning at least some guns?
Car manufacturers are improving their products.....what has the NRA done?
The nra doesn't make guns.
For someone who claims "No one wants to take away anyone's guns", you sure are keen on using the same talking points as those who want to ban guns, and relying on source material that suggests doing so, and even pointing to Australia and taking an ignorant dig at the nra as if they make guns.
What part of "owning a gun is a right not a privilege" do you not understand?
And "licensed"? Theres something like 4 states that require it, I.E. almost nowhere in America are guns "licensed".
Why do you need an AK-47?
I don't actually own any, nor do I have any desire to, however...You have given no reason why people shouldn't own them, and we do not live in a nation with a department of needs. Make your case, or don't, but know full well that "just because I say so" doesn't cut it.
An AK fires a 7.62 round with is roughly ballisticly equivalent to the 30-30, one of the most popular hunting rounds in history:
That's the AK round center, and the 30-30 round on the right. So the question is, are you planning on knowing what you're talking about instead of spouting canned talking points, any time soon?
We live in a free society. What people own isn't subject to "need" nor your understanding of any particular individuals needs.
Make your case, or don't, but know full well that "just because I say so" doesn't cut it.
You mean the national firearms act of 1934 and the gun control act of 1968 weren't "a start"? The fopa of 1986 and the brady bill from the 90s? Those weren't "a start"? Surely the Lautenberg amendment was a start?
And if none of those were a start, and we haven't made one yet, kindly tell me and everyone else where it ends.
Fear mongering pamphlets about taking your gun.
Don't give an inch or they'll take a mile.
Total brainwashing......
And yet here you are interpreting the "arms" in the second amendment as "some guns but only those which I approve of".
You're an extremist, trying to project the pretense that you're moderate. I'm under no duty to pretend with you.
How about I'll use Gun Manufacturers and the NRA? OK?
I am digging on the NRA since they turn a blind eye to the problem they help to proliferate.
When will you and those who think like you get it through your heads:
The nra and gun manufacturers are not responsible for the illegal choices of individuals.
I'm sorry you don't want to discuss this topic with a solution in mind.
Only 4 states have laws regarding licensing - sounds like an opportunity to fix the rest of the USA.
Laws were meant to be amended. That's our Constitution.
Especially when other Americans are dying due to the law or the lack of enforcement.
AK47
OK - I say they are useless for sport - you say let people decide.
Sounds like a referendum on a local ballot.
One possible solution here.
So I can use my 30-30 rounds in my AK47?
Ammo is expensive, so I can save some money?
There is no good reason to keep a AR15, AK47 or any possibly automatic weapon.
(protect you from the government you say? if they can drone bomb people halfway around the world, then they'll be by to take your gun from your cold dead hands, when they're ready)
.50 caliber
Keep your .50 caliber if you want a bigger hole through the target at shooting practice.
I just don't understand why anyone would need a .50 caliber anything.
Your right, your choice - but with better background checks 
Starting somewhere....
Those laws need updated desperately or at least amended.
When people stop killing other people, then we can stop talking about additional gun control.
Maybe its not through the gun control laws but maybe through the DMV when you get your drivers license and they submit you to a mental evaluation to drive a car and possess a firearm (at the same time).
Saves time and money and it may stop one accidental killing.
On NRA/Gun Companies - Extremist? Maybe.... Loud Activist? Yes!
I will always hold my opinion as you will hold on to yours.
However, I am more than willing to come to the middle and discuss how we can rationally resolve the opposing sides.
If you want your guns, so be it, but we need to agree upon a way to filter out some of the bad people.
This is a very small step to a bigger problem such as inequality and the poor urban areas.
NRA = No responsibility
When will the NRA set up a fund for the people injured/killed by firearms?
Sounds like deferred ignorance from the gun industry.
Turn away from the problem and focus on the gun control people....nevermind what horrific firearm experiences you see everyday in the news.
When will the NRA have mandatory training for all its members to avoid accidental killings?
Where's the culpability?
When a product is dangerous in the USA, and it kills someone, the companies involved typically take steps to improve the product to make it safer. This is largely due to the fact that these companies can be sued, even if there product is used in a manner not designed for.
Guns are made for killing, yet the gun industry is protected by US law from being sued.
Is this not a little odd to you?
People can sue an automobile company for using a car as a weapon, but can't sue the gun companies or at least make them liable to provide free training to all gun customers? Where is their skin in this costly game?
Good conversation so far.....
So you define our current state of laws with the national firearms act of 1934, the gun control act of 1968, the fopa of 1986, the brady bill, the Lautenberg amendment, and several thousand state gun laws, as unfettered?
Wow, you're more of an extremist than I realized.
I'm sorry you don't want to discuss solutions with reality in mind.
OK - I say they are useless for sport - you say let people decide.
Sounds like a referendum on a local ballot.
One possible solution here.
Ah. No. Banning semi-automatic rifles is a non-starter. My rights are not subject to popular vote:
“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943
Ammo is expensive, so I can save some money?
There is no good reason to keep a AR15, AK47 or any possibly automatic weapon.
(protect you from the government you say? if they can drone bomb people halfway around the world, then they'll be by to take your gun from your cold dead hands, when they're ready)
The discussion about so called "assault weapons" is about civilian legal semi-auto weapons, not fully automatic weapons.
Banning semi-autos is a non-starter.
Examples?
The function of law is generally to punish an act after the fact. I question the value of law in prevention. And I reject the notion that my rights should be on the chopping block because a tiny percentage of a percentage of people misuse guns resulting in them killing others.
First, I've been to the DMV in several states numerous times. I've never seen given any mental exam for driving.
Second, your comparison is apples and oranges. One of these things is not like the other - a constitutionally protected civil right.
Besides that, one can possess a car without the DMV just fine and legal. And drive it too, on private property.
That sounds so nice...on the surface. It almost sounds like you want to "compromise", but you don't.
You might try focusing on the bad people instead of the guns, theres a whole lot less of them.
When will ford set up a fund for people injured/killed by cars?
That's true in the case of malfunction, and less than sound design.
Nobody is suing GM because the corvette or camaro are too fast, handle and brake too well, have too large a fuel tank, or look like a race car.
Nor should they in a free society.
Is this not a little odd to you?
No, not when the intention of the suits in question was to sidestep the second amendment and sidestep congress and bankrupt an entire industry.
Its not unprecedented:
In 1978, U.S. general aviation manufacturers produced 18,000 of these aircraft for domestic use and for export around the world. Our manufacturers were the world leaders in the production of general aviation aircraft. By 1993, production had dwindled to only 555 aircraft. As a result, in the last decade over 100,000 wellpaying jobs were lost in general aviation manufacturing. An innovative and productive American industry has been pushed to the edge of extinction. This Act will allow manufacturers to supply new basic aircraft for flight training, business use, and recreational flying.
The Act establishes an 18-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft and component parts beyond which the manufacturer will not be liable in lawsuits alleging defective manufacture or design. It is limited to aircraft having a seating capacity of fewer than 20 passengers, which are not engaged in scheduled passengercarrying operations.
In its report to me and to the Congress last August, the National Commission to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry recommended the enactment of a statute of repose for general aviation aircraft. The report indicated that the enactment of such legislation would "help regenerate a once-healthy industry and help create thousands of jobs." I agree with this assessment; this is a job-creating and jobrestoring measure that will bring good jobs and economic growth back to this industry. It will also help U.S. companies restore our Nation to the status of the premier supplier of general aviation aircraft to the world, favorably affecting our balance of trade. Therefore, as I sign into law the "General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994," I am pleased to acknowledge the bipartisan work done by the Congress and by all the supporters of the general aviation industry.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
The White House, August 17, 1994
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=48984
To quote another poster:
An end to a thing that the Prohibitionists can not achieve by direct means in Legislatures who are elected by the people. Rather by indirect means through the Courts, where the Judges and Justices in most cases are not elected, rather appointed, with little fear of being removed for making poor decisions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=64825
What a ridiculous thing to do. I wouldn't support such nonsense. Would you?
And how far will you take that? Guns? Knives? Plastic cutlery and utensils?
And I would like to remind you of the definition of pretense:
Simple Definition of pretense
: a false reason or explanation that is used to hide the real purpose of something
: an act or appearance that looks real but is false
: a claim of having a particular quality, ability, condition, etc.
Please help me to understand, what you think my pretense is?
My most simplistic thought - Bad people with guns kill people, when 10,000s of people die in our great country due to guns, we need to do something about it.
You call this pretense?
Please let me know, what I am thinking, so I'll know too.
I like your fact links and the detailed responses, but how can we move forward?
Are you stating no gun control ever?
Our system is perfect as is?
Improve the ATF?
Let me know, what you are thinking...... instead of me making proposals and you knocking them down.
I respect your opinion on no referendum, but the quote you posted from the SC does not mention guns at all.
It mentions the bill of rights, but in the justice;s response, he does not list guns at all.
Amend the constitution! We can do it, they put that in there too!
Banning semi-auto -- non-starter.
OK
Then we'll just add a mental heath evaluation and mandatory training before purchasing a gun
I do not think this point is unreasonable at all.
Why pro-gun activists like to defend giving guns to possibly schicophrenic people, is beyond me.
The current laws do not filter out mentally ill people (I know this is a big one to discuss since its so broad) but this would definitely help to limit the firearm deaths.
Punishment:
No one's rights have been put on the chopping block.
I proposed increasing the mandatory sentencing requirements for people who do not follow the current gun laws.
A strong punishment does send a message to people who are not following the rules.
Law abiding citizens as yourself would not see a change at all.
Maybe steer the "fine" money to training/shooting centers.
DMV and Mental Health Screening:
This is just my proposal.
Get it done at the same time so we can evaluate the person's well being to drive a car and own a gun.
Social responsibility to protect our neighborhoods, towns, cities, etc...
Compromise:
Of course I want it my way and you want it yours.
But if we both agree that we disagree, then the subject goes nowhere.
If the "people" can agree on some consensus points, then we can pressure our congressmen/politicians to move forward with improving our safety.
I've already proposed many options to many issues surrounding gun control.
Can you share some of your ideas?
Sound good?
Bad people:
To focus on the bad people, we need a filter to identify them.
How do you propose to weed them out?
Previous armed felons? Mentally ill people beyond XYZ criteria? (dementia, etc)
How to filter is the question not whether or not we do it....imo.
The NRA:
They show little to no responsibility of how their industry they support, influences Americans on an everyday basis.
Ford improves their products all the time and they become safer each year.
Ford pays their fair share of lawsuits the gun industry does not.
NRA does.........
Please help me to fill in this blank.....what do they do?
Sueing the Gun Manufacturers:
Although this will never happen(sueing the industry), we should hold the gun industry accountable from a social aspect.
NRA funded training for semi-automatic weapons.
NRA funded gun cabinet program.
Tax credits for gun owners who participate in the programs.
Laws protecting the gun industry:
It will always be about money period.
You make a good point that the lawsuit would go beyond the 2nd amendment, which is not acceptable.
However, I still believe we need to move forward with some sort of liability for the gun industry.
Better training, increased safety, improved vetting process for new gun owners, etc...
The gun industry should be helping us make it a safer place in America not blocking all forms of reform.
Aviation Order:
Good link.
Although Clinton did sign this, we limited the protection for 18 years.
I would agree to a limited protection agreement for all guns on the market.
20 years? 30 years? When does the gun become unsafe?
Periodic checks of guns over 30 years old to deem them safe or possibly list them as "antique" and not for use?
Consumer Protection:
I know the USA is lawsuit happy, but I truly believe the gun industry needs to help make it safer.
We do not need more lawsuits, but we do need to reduce the firearm deaths by quite a lot.
Thank you for posting good links.
(First, I'll apologize for leaving this thread open, since it was time to clock out yesterday.)
Now back to the thread for a bit.....
Although I have chuckled at your attempts to try and judge my character and genuineness, as I read the previous posts, I can ascertain, that you view everyone who is anti-gun as not sincere with their posts and full of "pretense".
Oh boy, good thing I have alot of patience to handle your stubbornness.
Point one:
Knotty problem.
As I have tried to propose many different ideas to reduce the amount of firearm deaths, you relish in tearing them down.
Yet you never propose anything yourself except the status quo.
May I ask you to look in the mirror and say the word pretentious? If you know so much more about the issue and all of the facts and figures, then what is your proposal to keep all semi-automatic guns,high caliber, open carry, etc while reducing the number of firearm deaths? (here is where you typically respond with your own question, which dodges mine)
Point two:
Solution based strategy.
Lets use your data from the FBI and DOJ (hopefully we can get CDC data in the future)
Shall we break up the deaths into the FBI categories, and start naming ideas to reduce the death ratios by category?
Shall we separate the guns into categories and list what guns are off limits and what guns should have more ownership filters?
How would you like the solution analysis to work? (another chance for you to dodge with your own question, yet there's more chances coming.......)
Point three:
Trade off?
What would you like me to trade off on? Free bullets? No ban on semi-autos?
I've been waiting for at least one objective from the pro-gun side other than the typical "hell no" to any change.
What is the pro-gun cause?
Just say no to everything?
If its just say no, then may as well vote Tea Party, so at least you will know your congressman will do nothing, when he goes to the floor.
Point four:
Gun Control Knowledge
Although I do a better job at researching, than reading bumper stickers, this group has a vast amount of knowledge concerning the gun control issue.
I have learned alot from reading your posts and also can appreciate the pro-gun points.
The more I discuss this subject, the more I understand the deep divisions within the 2 sides.
In the end, both sides are pretentious to a point, about certain specifics concerning gun control.
There are small things we can do to improve gun control but the bigger issues like economic, education and social status will bring more success to reduce the death rates.
Point five:
I never said anyone was dumb who owned a gun.
There are "intellectually challenged" people wherever you go and owning a gun is not a criteria.
Name calling only indicates that you have run out of intelligent things to say.
Point six:
You mentioned magazine limits.
Is there a scenario that would be dangerous with a larger magazine?
I'm thinking for the average American, that the answer is no.
Magazine limits usually are brought up after mass killings, but in reality it would do little to deter the mass killing in the first place.
Guess I'm back to social inequality issues to reduce the number of mass killings.
Final points? What I've learned so far......
1. Increased enforcement of current gun laws - (funding for ATF)
2. Increased mandatory training for new gun owners (to reduce the amount of accidental deaths.)
3. Mental Health Evaluation - (This is a sticky topic for sure, but would help reduce the overall deaths by stopping gun ownership for people with dementia and similar brain diseases. Not to stop someone who has depression or a less serious mental illness)
4. Add new law to force background checks at every level i.e. gun shows. (is there a reason to object to this?)
5. If both sides can agree to at least 2 or 3 points, then I know we could accomplish change in our system. (both sides are very passionate and will follow through until completed - basically 2 sides with one very LOUD voice)
That's about it for now....
Let the flagging begin 
Please do not label me as another anti-gunner, I have come here with an open mind to the issue with the objective of trying to draw some consensus to this issue. You show little character as you attach broad labels to anyone outside of your ring.
Your talking points are awash in false pretense and incorrect information. How many examples from this thread would you like? How any of us views "everyone who is anti-gun" is not the question. How any of us would could and should view someone using well worn anti-gun talking points and false pretenses IS the question, because that's what YOU have done in just about every post in this thread.
The talking points are worn out because their is no solution yet and nor do you seem to want one.
You defend owning a gun (which I also support as a RIGHT) yet you want to ignore the 1% of bad people who own a gun for devious purposes.
False pretense/Incorrect information?
My goal is to reduce firearm deaths........
There are many avoidable firearm deaths in the USA. Which I guess you don't care since its not close to your personal life.
So I guess you don't agree its a problem that "other" people kill each other with firearms....... "not my problem bud".
(hope your not going to church on Sunday with that thought process)
anti-gun talking points viewpoint?
Sooooo, if I joined the NRA and owned multiple guns and went to shooting events then you would listen to my "reduce firearm deaths" talking points?
And I snicker at your label anti-gun, I am not anti-gun, but want to see something done to reduce the firearm deaths.
Sorry that you prefer to make it black v white, but I'm just not that person. (insert your conjecture here....)
gun control box?
My short list - hopefully outside of the box.
- So no banning of any weapon would be ok. No guns banned at all is a good idea?
- But would enforcing background checks universally be ok? At private sales as well?
- Universal Mandatory training @ 12th grade or up for new gun owners.
- Mental health evaluation for serious brain diseases? People with dementia or similar should not have guns.
- Gun cabinet (with lock) rebate program from the Government? Accidental deaths happen everyday in the USA since the guns are not locked away from children to "play with". Hopefully still outside of the box, since I have already "given" you no bans on any gun.
I am thinking the main reason no one wants to add to my list, is that all of you are afraid of appearing to negotiate with the enemy.
Solution based strategy:
So I'm on the right track here.
No ban on semi-autos?
No ban on any gun?
Is that better than what you have now?
I asked for your input and threw out what I have been seeing in other posts.
Its not my goal to ban anything, although I must admit one of my first posts indicated that they supported banning them (my fault)
Leave us alone mentality
I will not stop trying to reduce unnecessary deaths in the USA. Firearms are the most dangerous product we can purchase at Walmart at any time by almost anybody.
This is a problem that the pro-gun side refuses to acknowledge and address.
(They'll go away if we are mean and nasty to them and say no to everything they propose)
I like you guys, I'm gonna drop by and chat with everyone now and again
Owning a gun is a RIGHT:
I agree and can see why there is alot of passion behind keeping it the way it is, after reading many posters.
But hopefully we can agree on implementing measures to reduce the death rate.
Keep your gun but help reduce the firearm death rate......sound like the middle now?
Universal 12th grade training:
Interesting proposal - educate everyone on safety so they understand the correct way to handle a gun.
I like it. Now we need funding.
I'll digress and also wonder if universal alcohol/drug abuse training should be mandatory across the USA.
Background Checks at shows.
Although I am not a firearm numbers guy, I would imagine the risk is not that high, but why would we allow a certain group of people to be outside the law? Why did the Brady bill leave that out?
Seems like common sense to me. to hold the law over everyone universally.
Obviously most "bad" guns are not coming from the shows. But some are, I will suppose.
If we can stop one person from killing their nemesis with a gun bought at a show, then I'm for it.
I hate to ask a question at the end of an answer, but why do gun show people object to background checks?
Too hard?
Too much $$ to vet people out?
Or in my uneducated opinion.....too lazy cuz its easier to just take cash.
What would I give up in return?
No bans on any gun?
But enforcement and background checks are strictly enforced.
I really don't know what the pro-gun side wants as a bargaining chip.
.50 caliber rifles?
A program similar to the airlines TSA Precheck?
All gun owners that have been prescreened do not have to go through a background check?
I really don't know what your side would want or accept from the anti-gun side except just leave the guns alone.
Still a good conversation - I like this forum and the people.
Hello Friendly_Iconoclast, glad you can make the forum!
Opening with a rant is good for the soul, I hope you feel better
And I can say that no anti-gunner has said anything to me about "making them look bad".
Nice try though!
If you would want me to offer concessions, then please list what you want?
I have the following from this forum:
1. Stay out of the gun control box and work on fixing social, economic and education lapses in our current society.
2. Subtle changes to the current laws and enforcement, which could identify the people that could not operate a gun safely.
3. Gun Owner privacy is paramount
4. No ban on semi-autos
Would you like to add more? Or disagree with my list.
The choice is yours.
I love that quote too but I usually use it for describing Reagan trickle down economics.
Peace!
Show me one place where I've labeled you and you didn't earn it.
Let me be perfectly crystal clear. I have no problems with solutions which do not interfere with or infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you see only solutions that necessarily do that, you are the problem.
You claim you support owning a gun as a right, yet you want to attach all kinds of qualifiers to it which would NEVER fly if proposed on speech or voting.
That's not exactly what I'd call "support".
I don't ignore the 1 percent at all. I expect them to be your focus, rather than rifles with grips that protrude.
Right from the manual:
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665
Furthermore, you don't know how many people I have personally lost to gun violence, so that's a huge assumption on your part, and a false one to boot.
I never said it isn't a problem. That's you making shit up.
Nra membership got nothing to do with it. Anti-gun talking points are anti-gun talking points no matter what orgs you belong to.
Sorry that you prefer to make it black v white, but I'm just not that person. (insert your conjecture here....)
Wait, you want to ban so called assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles, want annual training as a qualifier to exercise a constitutionally protected civil right, along with a host of other conditions which would NEVER be accepted on voting or speech rights, but you're not anti-gun.
Yeah, right.
Unless your position has changed on those. Has it?
I am thinking the main reason no one wants to add to my list, is that all of you are afraid of appearing to negotiate with the enemy.
Nope. Nobody here is much interested in helping anti-gunners move the football, because we know full well what their goals are. While you may or may not have the best of intentions, they do not, for a fact.
Hey, great, more power to you. Try ways that don't mess with gun ownership, and you may actually get some support from people not in the gun ban camp.
That's an opinion, not an established empirical fact. Otherwise known as a false premise.
But hopefully we can agree on implementing measures to reduce the death rate.
Then don't propose qualifications on that right that would never be accepted on voting or speech.
I'm not looking for the middle. In all actuality, if we were in "the middle" we wouldn't even be discussing firearms, we'd be discussing weapons of actual war, because the second amendment doesn't say "firearms" it says "arms. Instead, were here debating firearms, which are but a tiny subset of all arms. Definitely not "the middle"
In any case, I'm looking to stop most new gun control dead in its tracks, and force people like you to go to other non-gun control methods, because the right has been interfered with quite enough for my tastes.
Although I am not a firearm numbers guy, I would imagine the risk is not that high, but why would we allow a certain group of people to be outside the law?
I'm not in favor of trading a few lawless individuals for a lawless government.
Because of the commerce clause of the constitution. The federal government was granted authority over interstate commerce in the constitution. Interstate commerce is commerce between two or more states. A private sale of a firearm within the same state, whether at a gun show, or newspaper add, garage sale, or internet post, is intra-state commerce, something the federal government was never explicitly given authority over. That is why congress did not add that to the brady bill. That is why its not a "loophole".
It isn't "gun show people" who object. Its "private property" people who don't want to see a federal power grab - which is what a federal private sale background check law would be - that object.
Yes, in order to get what you want.
We already generally have that. You can't offer up something we already have as a bargaining chip.
Again, You can't offer up something we already have as a bargaining chip. You want new controls, offer up some restrictions to eliminate.
I can think of a few things I've seen. Nationwide conceal carry reciprocity. NFA fee reduced to 10 bucks for 5 years. NFA registry re-opened permanently. Elimination of so called gun free zones. Elimination of all executive orders covering import of rifles and ammunition. Elimination of "may issue" concealed carry.
To simply own a gun?
No more offending controls, and elimination of some existing controls which are offensive in nature.
Thanks for all the posts beevul.
I appreciate all of the replies.
Anti-gun forums:
I may get flagged, beat down and called names, but it doesn't really faze me at this point.
We need to move forward and both sides cannot sit there with their arms folded, grunting at each other.
Maybe a few people will agree and hopefully change their views to a more moderate tone.
And what a long post on guns...wow!
I'll bookmark that one for future reference.
Potentially lethal?
I think the gun is the most potential lethal product at Walmart.
Although you may be able to provide a recipe to make a bomb from the fertilizer in the back 
But I will agree that we probably view this topic at a slightly different angle.
Oh sh*t! - Sorry to reference GE instead of you.
12th grade universal training is good.
I thought it was a great proposal that could gain ground.
Prohibitionist End?
Gonna have to agree with you here.
Bill of rights.
I got it. Same fundamental rights.
Universal conceal carry.
I'll get it right, one of these days.
Gun free zones?
Unfortunately in a democratic system, some people who voted, will not get their way.
That's where majority rules.
I can understand why a gun owner might be upset.
But I fail to see the larger impact to the general population.
(I can;t imagine someone saying "i'm not going to San Fran, because of the gun free zone, because I have a gun"
Democratic voting process.
If you are using a direct correlation, then I guess you are right.
But in all fairness, we could add waterboarding, public executions, etc... j/k
Our voting process may not be the best, but its what we got.
Social morality needs to have an increased impact on our decisions.
We can always petition for a referendum somewhere, what would you like to petition for?
I'll bookmark that one for future reference.
You should check out the archives. Seriously. This argument has been going on since just about the day DU went live some 16ish years ago. I watched and read for the first few years, and decided to start participating in 2004, and I can tell you firsthand, what you see here now is mild and meek, compared to the old days. And, its a bit more abbreviated than it used to be, I can remember a lot of 300+ post threads locked due to length in those days.
Seriously, check out the archives when you can.
I think the gun is the most potential lethal product at Walmart.
Although you may be able to provide a recipe to make a bomb from the fertilizer in the back
But I will agree that we probably view this topic at a slightly different angle.
So you make your bomb. Its potentially lethal. It is how you decide to use it that determines whether it will be or wont be, just like I said. Just like a gun. Just like a knife. Just like an automobile. Just like a golf club. It is undeniable.
12th grade universal training is good.
I thought it was a great proposal that could gain ground.
No biggie. I wasn't sweating it, it was just in the interest of accuracy.
Unfortunately in a democratic system, some people who voted, will not get their way.
That's where majority rules.
I'm not talking about private property here, FYI. I'm talking about public spaces.
(I can;t imagine someone saying "i'm not going to San Fran, because of the gun free zone, because I have a gun"
I can imagine someone being in a position where they're carrying but are forced to leave the gun in the car because they have to cross some public space where they aren't allowed to carry, as one of their destinations for the day.
Oh, and for what its worth, I don't carry, nor do I have any desire to.
I appreciate your frankness and attention to detail in every post.
I am glad you are very self-aware of your skills and limitations.
You have a better empirical understanding of the Gun Control Policies, than I do. (is this stated better?)
My answers to your questions (although you say I don't have a valid argument, you don't answer my questions.......)
Of course people have the right to defend themselves. (but endanger others)
Of course we deserve the best, this is the USA! (if you got credit, then sign and drive today!)
But in doing so, I would hope you would agree, that not everybody is capable of handling the "best" firearms out there.
This is where we need at least a subtle filter.
Not everyone can handle machine guns. (I'm sure you don;t want to see multiple posts of accidental shooting with machine guns).
Improved training? Yearly renewals on licenses? On specific guns only?
Solutions from the pro-gun side?
Rampage killer questions:
Well, my first thought is that the shock factor of an automatic weapon killing people sells well on mass media.
Can loop that story for hours.Gun control is quite controversial (as you know) so people migrate to the controversy.
My second thought is that it scores political points - as you have mentioned before.
But my third thought is that its about money.
Every time there is a highly publicized mass murder with a gun, and its on mass TV, gun sales will go up across the nation.
Sounds like money for the gun industry and they almost want a high profile firearm homicide on TV, so sales will surge.
Very sad to say, but I believe most decisions in our world are based on money first.
I'll have to work on trolling more information on this subject so my posts won't be called invalid 
Ahh - you bring up the heroin opiate issues.
Heroin or any drug is used by our government as trading chips. No time to post links.
There is also legislation in Congress right now to setup funding for heroin addicts.
So a bill that sounds good on the outside actually will send money to the Pharma companies to supply the drugs.
Hopefully there will be alot of success stories about people beating the addiction and not just increased dividends for the Pharma companies.
Unfortunately making money is driving corporate responsibility.
Peace out!
Non-automatic, civilian, Title 1, small- and intermediate-caliber, rifles. Shotguns and the occasional odd pistol (like the Hammerli pistols used in the Olympics) sometimes fall afoul of "assault weapon" regulations, but almost all "assault weapons" are simply autoloading rifles with handgrips that stick out.
For example, this rifle (a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle) is *not* an assault weapon in any state:
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html
This one *is* an "assault weapon" in some states:
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TargetRifle/models.html
And this one will get you half a decade or more in prison in California or New York:
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14TacticalRifle/models.html
Here's the kicker: All of the above are the SAME RIFLE. Just different furniture. You could take the very modern looking one at the bottom and swap the stock for the straight wooden one up top in literally 30 seconds. I used to own a Mini-14 myself, and I owned 3 stocks for it; the straight wooden one, one with an ergonomic vertical handgrip, and one that folded for storage. With the latter, it would have been an "assault weapon" under the 1994 Feinstein law; with the former, legal under the Feinstein ban and AFAIK even legal in New York City; and with the middle one, it was a felony in California but legal almost everywhere else. Simply by swapping the stock.
AR-15's, the most popular rifles in U.S. homes, are the same way. Mine looks a lot like this:
http://thrumylens.org/firearms/jumping-into-the-ar-15-world/
but if you alter it a little to accomodate a straight 19th-century-style stock, you get this, which is legal in every state. Again, stock shape. The upper receivers are interchangeable.
http://www.aresdefense.com/?page_id=729
As to hunting, plenty of people hunt with "assault weapons", especially small game, but AR-15's and such are often considered underpowered for deer-sized animals because most of them are very small caliber (most fire .223 Remington/5.56mm, the smallest of all common centerfire rifle rounds). But, one of the nifty things about the AR platform is that you can also get them in larger calibers better suited for deer, like 6.8mm SPC, or (if you step up to the larger AR-10 platform) .243 Winchester, 7mm-08, or .308. The only difference between a "hunting" rifle and a "nonhunting" rifle is whether or not the person holding it is in the woods stalking a deer, or not.
The thing is, though, that "assault weapon" owners outnumber hunters by at least 2:1 (although most hunters also own nonhunting guns, so there's overlap). And gun-owning nonhunters outnumber hunters by at least 5:1.
